User talk:Math1985

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

why adding tag withou proposal?

you'll add lot's of tag witouth proposal and form some tag there's already a tag available. -Yod4z (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yod4z, I agree with you that it is not a good thing to have duplicate tags. However, it's not always easy to decide which tags are duplicates and which tags have a subtle difference in meaning (for example office=estate_agent versus shop=estate_agent). Also, I'm only documenting tags that are currently in widespread use, not creating new ones. A proposal is not required for that (many tags have been already documented without proposal). In case the tag added to the wiki conflicts with a formally accepted tag, I always mention so on the page, and if the formally accepted tag is also more widely used, I mention that use of the other tag is discouraged. If a tag conflicts with another defacto tag, I also mention so. I hope we can cut down on the number of duplicate tags in the future, but in cases where users disagree, it seems we cannot do much more than document both alternatives. Math1985 (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for setting up the Tag:leisure=fitness_centre page properly. It's the best tag I reckon. But the redirect of Gym / Fitness centre needs to wait a bit longer (like a few more years I reckon). Explaining a bit more here: Talk:Gym / Fitness centre#leisure=fitness_centre is winning. Basically ...slowly slowly catchy monkey :-) -- Harry Wood (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me, thanks for updating the page! Math1985 (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


Hello, leisure=ice_rink is not bin rendert. See here

What is the reason for that?

1. Incorrect tagging. We should use leisure=pitch + sport=ice_skating

2. Incorrect rendering. leisure=ice_rink should be rendert like leisure=pitch


Hi, to keep the discussion central, could you please ask this at Math1985 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not familiar in that and my english is not so good. May be you can do it?--geozeisig (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I think your English is quite fine! I'd really prefer if you create a ticket yourself. I get quite a lot of requests like this through different channels, like e-mail/forums, which takes me quite a lot of time, si it's much easier for me if you'd create the ticket!


Just a heads up that I have some questions on Template_Talk:Discouraged--Jojo4u (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Icon for supermarket in black?

Why should be the icon for supermarket in black? See: File:Supermarket-14.svg Category:Shop_icons --geozeisig (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I wanted to upload a new version from the Git repository, but didn't notice that the repository versions are colored black and white (they are coloured in the cartocss code). Do you know how I revert an image upload? The Undo button doesn't seem to do anything.Math1985 (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to help with the effort to port the map features lists to Taginfo-backed taglists. As you are already very active, I wanted to ask in advance how I could help in the best way. Should I just pick any sub-templates on Map features which have not yet been ported and start working? I'm aware that we need to make sure the infobox templates and the map features are in sync before we can merge them. Are there other "best practices" to pay attention to? And is there a page to coordinate efforts or something like that? --Tordanik 18:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, great that you want to help! I think just picking one of the subtemplates to port is the best way to help. I just created a project page, see Taginfo/Taglists/Wiki_project. Is this what you had in mind? Feel free to change anything you like on the project page! Math1985 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful instructions, that answers my questions. :) I will start porting templates then. --Tordanik 15:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi again, thanks for taking the time to review my first taglist! I've got a question about your edit. Why is the link to the template no longer useful? If I understand the purpose of that link correctly, it's to help inexperienced wiki users who attempt to edit Map Features to find the location where they can do so. (Clicking edit on Map Features itself, which they normally would attempt, doesn't work.) That aspect hasn't been changed by the port, has it? I would like to clarify this before proceeding with the next templates. --Tordanik 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for contributing! I don't think the part 'wiki template with a default description in English' is correct anymore: the new template doesn't contain any descriptions. Perhaps we could change the text a bit, so that it states that descriptions/pictures can be changed by editing the tags's infoboxes, and that the choice of tags can be changed by editing the wiki template? I think this text itself should be a template as well, so we can easily maintain it. Actually I'm not even sure if we should display this to people reading the page, maybe including it as a comment in the source would work as well? Math1985 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Waterway taglists

Hello, you have switched {{Map Features:waterway}} to taglists. But you have added some tags which were not recommended (striked) to use. Now it seems that they are approved to use. Those are waterway=wadi, waterway=drystream. I think you should either update their definition (add discouraged notice) or remove them from the Map Features pages altogether.

Also all the tags in section Some additional attributes for waterways are missing now and the same is true for {{Map Features:place}}. Why? Don't you think these tags are useful?


Chrabroš (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! For drystream the situation is a bit complicated: the tag was mentioned as deprecated on the waterway page, but not on the feature page itself. In this case I'd be inclined to follow the feature page. If we want to deprecate the feature, the feature page should say so too. The case for wadi seems to be a bug: I would expect the description that says the feature is deprecated to also show on the taglists page. Some kind of bug? Perhaps we could drop wadi entirely from this page? Math1985 (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe the reason why the wadi description does not appear is that Taginfo does not support templates in descriptions, see Taginfo/Parsing_the_Wiki#description_parameter_should_only_contain_plain_text. --Tordanik 11:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello, could you please respond to the second part of my question as well? Why you have left out the sections of additional attributes for {{Map Features:waterway}} and {{Map Features:place}}? Thank you. Chrabroš (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
??? Chrabroš (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a lot going on! I think the first fundamental question is the question what the page should describe: the waterway key, or all waterway-related features. Given that the table is included on, I'm inclined to say the first. In that case, I'm not sure if including additional features makes sense. However, if we do think it makes sense, we should find a technical way to include them. Maybe we can start a discussion somewhere else (Talk page or mailing list) to figure out what the desired behaviour is? Once we have an answer to that, I can make sure that it will be implemented the right way. Math1985 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, but I am sorry I have to disagree. Those keys and tags were there for a long time until you have removed them. So I believe that a correct way would be to start the discussion BEFORE removing them and ask for some approval and not vice versa. Or is there any technical issue with Taglists? Thanks. Chrabroš (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a technical issue when trying to list keys (as opposed to tags) in the automatically generated tables, see Talk:Taginfo/Taglists#Keys. I don't know whether that had anything to do with Math1985's decision to omit a section of the template, though. --Tordanik 17:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Namespaces for shops

As you mention you're "coordinating and documenting the use of tags for shops",
what do you think of using a namespace for any shops ? As an example : Compare shop=car with shop=motorcycle (regarding the "service" tags).
IMHO it's especially easier this way to tag "mixed" shops with the offered services
(but not only shops - in case of rental, for example).

Sorry, it's not really clear to me what you mean? Where are namespaces used in the above tags? Math1985 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I meant the "prefix" in shop=motorcycle, which isn't available (yet) for shop=car services (see also "not versatile enough" in the talk page).
This way you may tag a shop for example :
  • shop=motorcycle
  • motorcycle:sales=yes
  • motorcycle:repair=yes
  • motorcycle:rental=no
  • bicycle:repair=yes
  • atv:sales=yes
(you don't need to create several shops to express what it exactly offers)
In shop=car, this is solved via service= (where I'd need to use semicolon separators for multiple values).
Another advantage is IMHO you may use these tags also for other keys
such as shop=rental or tourism=hotel (in case they offer rental, or if a shop=supermarket also sells scooters : motorcycle:sales=yes motorcycle:type=scooter).
In case of motorcycles, you also got shops like
  • shop=motorcycle
  • motorcycle:clothes=yes
  • motorcycle:parts=yes
  • motorcycle:sales=no
(better than to tag it as shop=clothes or to use two "shop types").
I assume a similar "mixture" also applies to other types of shops,
so I think the format could generally be introduced to ease the expression of such details ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good to me! Math1985 (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, suggestions for the proposal formulation ? Feel free to edit the draft or to contact me directly for a discussion. rtfm Rtfm (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

admin_level with office=government

Hi, Math1985.
In you have included a paragraph saying that admin_level=* can be used together with office=government objects
This change was propagated to, at least, two other pages (including boundary=administrative ).
Was this admin_level suggestion/usage discussed somewhere?
Note that admin_level was introduced to differentiate borders (and not the specify the administrative sphere of an office)
A more correct approach would be to use operator=* and/or ownership=*, for example, instead admin_level. --naoliv (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Naoliv, the proposal for government offices was discussed on the tagging list and the wiki. The proposal contained the line 'admin_level=* to indicate the administrative level', at the time of the proposal nobody had any comments on this specific line. The admin_level key on this key is used 5 667 times now. Why do you think this key cannot be applied to government offices (to distinguish city/state/country governments)? Math1985 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki editing of Proposals

Hello Math1985, I have just noticed that you have changed the proposal for historic=aqueduct to a feature page (back in 2015). Please in the future, keep the proposal page and make a new page for the feature. This way, we can link back to the original proposal from the feature (for documentation reasons). For reference: Tag:historic=aqueduct --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point, will do! Math1985 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Tourism tag list icons

Hi there. It seems as though a few of the icon thumbnails in the tourism tag list template are broken. I tried to fix it but couldn't figure out how and I noticed you were the last person to edit the template. So I thought id see if you would be willing to take a look at it. Also, if you know how and are willing, can you add the sub value usage counts to both the leisure and shop templates? I have no clue how to do it but it would be nice to have. So id really appreciate you doing it if you can.


shop=windows discouraged

Hello, I just wrote a message on this subject on the talk page where I propose to continue the discussion so that the next one can find it:) Regards, Marc marc (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)